Most people may not realize it but the Big1G has a problem. To illustrate this problem the states represented by this conference had a net loss of 6 Congressional seats after the 2010 Census. Not a single state from this conference experienced a population growth rate equal to or above the national average. Projections are this same group of states will lose an additional 5 more Congressional seats after the 2020 Census. This conference's only viable means for growth is through actual expansion.

The SEC is not going to raid the ACC because an unstable ACC gives the Big1G too many viable options for expansion which gives them an avenue out of their stagnant future. The SEC and ACC were going to pool their 3rd tier rights into a single network anyway - This FSU thing may make it happen sooner than later.

This is the breakdown I prefer, too. However, I think they have their eyes on the VA/NC/DC markets. Profits from a SEC cable network with a base population of around 100M will blow broadcast rating gains by adding someone like an FSU out of the water.

This is the breakdown I prefer, too. However, I think they have their eyes on the VA/NC/DC markets. Profits from a SEC cable network with a base population of around 100M will blow broadcast rating gains by adding someone like an FSU out of the water.

I agree that this is the most logical breakdown and makes sense with regard to East/West divisions. But as I stated earlier, part fo the problem of acquiring VT is the same as acquiring OU, one apparently won't come without the other. Best case scenario? VT in the East, OU in the West, but neither of them wanting to leave "little brother" behind is the fly in the ointment and that being the case, you have to decide which one of the two pairs of teams bring the most to the table. If that is Va Tech/Virginia tandem, so be it, but it get it done.

Yeah, but on the other hand, the SEC could choose to add Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Now what would this do for the SEC? Well, OSU carries about the same Nielsen Share as Missouri when they play. So, equal footing with Missouri and with OSU's recent upswing in national prominence along with a good basketball and baseball program (though neither have been as good lately as they have been in the past), they do bring something of value to the table.

OU, as much as many hate them, brings the largest Nielsen Share footprint on a national basis of any of the teams being considered. For some reason, when they play, a good portion of the nation seems to tune in, so from the standpoint of TV value, they are more significant than any of the existing SEC teams. Unbelievable I know, but true. On top of that they rank as being the #10 most valuable football program in the country according to Forbes so their revenues are solid.

Problem is, like the Virgina schools and the N. Carolina schools, one is not coming without the other. I'd love to take OU and not OSU, but that apparently isn't going to happen. Package deal.

But, if the SEC took these two it fill out the league to 16, it would add two good teams with great facilities, revenues and national popularity, would expand the West and East to 8 teams each and in all likelihood, would enable all annual rivalry games to remain in place, though it would likely call for Missouri being moved back to the West while Alabama and Auburn moved to the East.

I think that Oklahoma/Okie State are Plan C for the SEC. Everything you said about OU and OSU is true, but I think it extends the footprint in the wrong direction from the SEC's standpoint. I think the SEC wants to have some sort of geographical balance with east and west in the league's final form; they've been to the well in the west, now it's time to solidify the SEC's eastern presence. Virginia and North Carolina are the last untapped southeastern markets for the SEC; they're growing markets and they have a great deal in common with the current footprint culturally and demographically. Adding eastern teams would allow Missouri to move back to the SEC West where it belongs, anyway.

If we were to add OU and OSU, we'd be bringing in two teams that split a state with less population than any other SEC state besides Mississippi and Arkansas; both Virginia and North Carolina are more than twice as large as Oklahoma and are far better fits. If you're going to split a state, South Carolina is even a better option than Oklahoma.

While OU has a national draw, OSU's football success has nearly all been very recent. Additionally, while Texas clearly calls the shots in the Big 12, Oklahoma is the second biggest winner in the beauty pageant. It's hard to see why OU would want to leave an arrangement that's basically custom-made to ensure their continuing success. I think Okie State is likelier to leave if they get a chance than OU.

I still believe that luring in two schools with the academic status of Missouri and Texas A&M was Slive setting up for the final round of realignment. He's putting together the academic profile that will be attractive to ACC schools if they suddenly find themselves in need of a good home.

Additionally, I can't see where this is good internally for the league. You've basically got the old SEC getting the band back together in the east, and the west becomes a suburb where the new guys have moved in. The only old, traditional SEC power in the West is LSU while a great deal of the league's clout is concentrated in the east. That sounds like a bad arrangement for LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, and State--enough to kill the deal if they vote no--and makes me wonder wether they'd support that kind of move. And if they didn't, the East is a murderers row--I can easily see Bama being against a deal like this.

Here's how I see it shaking out if the league decides to expand again:

Plan A: Some combination of UNC/Duke/Virginia TechPlan B: Some combination of Virginia Tech/NC State/Florida StatePlan C: Some combination of OU/OSU/VT/FSU/ClemsonPlan D: Some combination of OSU/VT/Clemson

How much is the new BCS playoff format going to play into the equation? If somehow the B1G gets their way and only conference champions make the 4 team final, then concentrating too many power schools into one conference will not happen. OU wouldn't give the SEC a second thought as they would have to compete with LSU, BAMA, FLorida etc for that one conference slot.

There comes a point where it becomes counterproductive to add upper echelon teams. In every game there has to be a loser and how many of those teams will be content with only winning 8 or 9 games with that level of competition?

I think that Oklahoma/Okie State are Plan C for the SEC. Everything you said about OU and OSU is true, but I think it extends the footprint in the wrong direction from the SEC's standpoint. I think the SEC wants to have some sort of geographical balance with east and west in the league's final form; they've been to the well in the west, now it's time to solidify the SEC's eastern presence. Virginia and North Carolina are the last untapped southeastern markets for the SEC; they're growing markets and they have a great deal in common with the current footprint culturally and demographically. Adding eastern teams would allow Missouri to move back to the SEC West where it belongs, anyway.

If we were to add OU and OSU, we'd be bringing in two teams that split a state with less population than any other SEC state besides Mississippi and Arkansas; both Virginia and North Carolina are more than twice as large as Oklahoma and are far better fits. If you're going to split a state, South Carolina is even a better option than Oklahoma.

While OU has a national draw, OSU's football success has nearly all been very recent. Additionally, while Texas clearly calls the shots in the Big 12, Oklahoma is the second biggest winner in the beauty pageant. It's hard to see why OU would want to leave an arrangement that's basically custom-made to ensure their continuing success. I think Okie State is likelier to leave if they get a chance than OU.

I still believe that luring in two schools with the academic status of Missouri and Texas A&M was Slive setting up for the final round of realignment. He's putting together the academic profile that will be attractive to ACC schools if they suddenly find themselves in need of a good home.

Additionally, I can't see where this is good internally for the league. You've basically got the old SEC getting the band back together in the east, and the west becomes a suburb where the new guys have moved in. The only old, traditional SEC power in the West is LSU while a great deal of the league's clout is concentrated in the east. That sounds like a bad arrangement for LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, and State--enough to kill the deal if they vote no--and makes me wonder wether they'd support that kind of move. And if they didn't, the East is a murderers row--I can easily see Bama being against a deal like this.

Here's how I see it shaking out if the league decides to expand again:

Plan A: Some combination of UNC/Duke/Virginia TechPlan B: Some combination of Virginia Tech/NC State/Florida StatePlan C: Some combination of OU/OSU/VT/FSU/ClemsonPlan D: Some combination of OSU/VT/Clemson

I don't disagree with a thing you said, BUT, as I said before the thing that has blocked this (apparently) in the past is:

Va Tech not coming without Virginia.

Duke? They bring academics and basketball, that's it. Maybe that is enough, but I can't see it. Football is king.

North Carolina and NC State? See Va Tech-Virgina. Not one without the other.

Florida State? Great t.v. revenues...maybe in todays world that is all that counts but their football revenues from attendance are far below SEC standards.

Clemson, good football program and revenues but how much Nielsen Share when they play and on a national basis?

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are not going to split just like Va Tech/Virginia or North Carolina/NC State. Any choice you make is a package deal.

Virginia was forced to let VA Tech into the ACC by the state legislature. Beyond that, there's nothing that ties them together. UVA doesn't intrinsically care what conference VA Tech is in - unless they get jealous . What I know about VA Tech, though, is that they really like the Olympic/non-revenue sports competition in the ACC and might feel bad about forcing themselves into the ACC and then bolting just a few years later.

Clemson's not a national draw and we already have the SC market. I don't know that doubling-down there does us any good.

UNC seems like an untapped mine for football. I don't know how we could get them out of NC, though, with NC State, Duke, and Wake around. Kind of like trying to pry UT out of Texas.

Since the SEC can only take 16, some teams are going to get left out. We can't just take the top schools. It would never work. So, this is about market share more than on-field wins and losses, and a mediocre Mizzou or UNC > FSU or Okie State in that regard. So can the SEC afford to take two schools from Oklahoma just to get OU and forego gaining ground on the East Coast? I don't see how.

So if we look at as having to take both schools then the state of Virginia is the easiest to conquer. But I'm not so sure VT and UVA are tied at the hip. That seemed to be a forced union to begin with and UVa may notm ind letting little brother go.

OU doesn't want to give up it's UT rivalry as UNC wouldn't be willing to give up the Duke one. Plus that grant of rights issue keeps oming up with regards to big12 schools.

So if we look at as having to take both schools then the state of Virginia is the easiest to conquer. But I'm not so sure VT and UVA are tied at the hip. That seemed to be a forced union to begin with and UVa may notm ind letting little brother go.

OU doesn't want to give up it's UT rivalry as UNC wouldn't be willing to give up the Duke one. Plus that grant of rights issue keeps oming up with regards to big12 schools.

Ou wouldn't have to give up the Texas game anymore than UNC would have to give up Duke. That is why you have 4 OOC games. Not difficult to schedule. Everyone assumes that a conference move would eliminate these games and that is simply not true.

Like some other posters above, I'm not sure that VT and UVA are really all that tied together. I don't think UVA has any interest in the SEC and VT possibly could, provided the conditions were right.

Duke isn't a school you get on its own; it's only valuable in tandem with another ACC school, and maybe only with UNC. Getting Duke and UNC into the conference carves the heart out of ACC country and makes the SEC the dominant player in that market. While you're right that basketball isn't the driver of the bus, I think for a Duke/UNC tandem it would be a siginificant factor, maybe the only tandem in potential realignment scenarios for which it could be a significant factor. Additionally, I think Duke and UNC are more tied together than UNC and NC State.

Regarding NC State, UNC does have a major influence on its board of regents. But, if basketball really is #1 at UNC, it might possibly be to UNC's advantage to agree to NC State to leave for the football-first SEC. NC State gets richer, UNC's recruiting edge over NC State in basketball is increased. May be a win/win there. Still, I think it unlikely.

Oklahoma won't go without Okie State, but I don't know if Oklahoma would stop Okie State from going its own way, especially when the Pokes doing so might finally open the way for the Sooners' long-sought after departure for the Pac 10.

Clemson, Florida State, West Virginia and Oklahoma State are trickier topics. When you look at the SEC and its territory, you don't see many high-population states or even lots of schools with national followings. What you do see are teams and institutions that make for compelling matchups and exciting viewing; in other words, in the SEC, the whole is something greater than the sum of the parts.

That's where schools like Clemson, Florida State, West Virginia, and Oklahoma State (without Oklahoma) can add to the product. None of these teams on their own bring enormous groups of fans, and only one (Okie State) expands the footprint in any really meaningful way. Taken individually, they're not that impressive. But matchups like Clemson vs. Georgia, Florida State vs. Auburn, West Virginia vs. Tennessee, Okie State vs. Arkansas, and many other combinations of these teams add interesting games and stories to the conference slate that may translate to greater gains and fan interest outside of the footprint. The SEC is a regional conference with a growing national following, based not solely on where schools are located but mainly on how interesting the product is. That's something these schools can add that transcends a mere headcount.

Ou wouldn't have to give up the Texas game anymore than UNC would have to give up Duke. That is why you have 4 OOC games. Not difficult to schedule. Everyone assumes that a conference move would eliminate these games and that is simply not true.

They just assume that because KU and UT played the jilted lover part and cancelled their series. Realignment has nothing to do with stopping rivalry games. USCe - Clemson, Florida - Florida State, Georgia - GT are all good examples.

I don't see how a 16 team league gets divided any way other than 4 divisions of 4 teams. For scheduling purposes, you always play your 3 division rivals, and then you put the other 3 divisions on rotation - playing 2 (8 teams) other divisions each year.

This way, schools will go no more than 2 years without seeing a specific conference opponent. Adopting a 12 game schedule would permit room for one non-conference game. If that game is a rivalry game, then more power to you.

Can you imagine what type of TV package could be put together when it isn't hit with OOC scheduling? Can you imagine the demand for season tickets?

So. "Which 2 teams fill out the 16 member conference?" The ACC is a fairly s strong conference, and North Carolina doesn't appear to suffer the foolishness Texas breads with its state-mates. These universities actually work together.

I suspect that the ACC and SEC will strive to enhance their respective leagues. I think we would have a far better idea of what the SEC will look like if we can envision the future of the ACC:

I think that the rest of the conferences are seriously compromised. I suppose it is possible that the B1G recognizes the errors of its ways - they should have grabbed Mizzou while they had the chance. If the B1G decides to expand, I suspect that they would be most interested in Syracuse, Rutgers, Notre Dame and Pitt. However, I think that they are more likely to end up with Big 12 holdovers looking to escape Texas - Iowa State, Kansas and Kansas State. Notre Dame still would make sense to close out the 16.

If this is accurate, I think the SEC takes Virginia Tech and West Virginia. No way the Mountaineers fit in the Big 12. They were simply trying to escape the Big East. At some point, geography and demographics bring greater enhancement to the league than fractioning interests.

In order to maintain whatever it is that they have, the Big 12 will add some teams like SMU, Rice, Boise State... maybe BYU, New Mexico or Colorado State. Whatever it takes to allow Texas to maintain its independence. It will be mighty boring to watch.

Yeah, but on the other hand, the SEC could choose to add Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Now what would this do for the SEC? Well, OSU carries about the same Nielsen Share as Missouri when they play. So, equal footing with Missouri and with OSU's recent upswing in national prominence along with a good basketball and baseball program (though neither have been as good lately as they have been in the past), they do bring something of value to the table.

OU, as much as many hate them, brings the largest Nielsen Share footprint on a national basis of any of the teams being considered. For some reason, when they play, a good portion of the nation seems to tune in, so from the standpoint of TV value, they are more significant than any of the existing SEC teams. Unbelievable I know, but true. On top of that they rank as being the #10 most valuable football program in the country according to Forbes so their revenues are solid.

Problem is, like the Virgina schools and the N. Carolina schools, one is not coming without the other. I'd love to take OU and not OSU, but that apparently isn't going to happen. Package deal.

But, if the SEC took these two it fill out the league to 16, it would add two good teams with great facilities, revenues and national popularity, would expand the West and East to 8 teams each and in all likelihood, would enable all annual rivalry games to remain in place, though it would likely call for Missouri being moved back to the West while Alabama and Auburn moved to the East.

I have seen a different model of the SEC once it goes to 16 teams. It would follow a 3-2-3 model. Three teams from your own division, two yearly rivals, and three rotating opponents which would allow you to complete the entire circuit every six years. It would look something like this: (this model assumes the addition of VT and NC St)

That's an interesting model. I would prefer the one I described in the post above yours. It would go as follows (substituting West Virginia for NC State):

SEC SouthFloridaVirginia TechSouth CarolinaWest Virginia/N.C. State

SEC EastGeorgiaTennesseeKentuckyVanderbilt

SEC CentralAlabamaAuburnOle MissMiss. State

SEC WestMissouriTexas A&MArkansasLSU

Year 1: South v. East and Central; East v. South and West; Central v. South and West; West v. East and Central

Year 2: South v. Central and West; East v. West and Central; Central v. South and East; West v. East and South

Year 3: South v. West and Central; East v. South and Central; Central v. East and West; West v. South and Central

Repeat...

I appreciate the benefits between all types of scheduling... What I recommend offers fewer out of conference games. However, crowning division champions is easier because everyone will play common opponents.

I also like that you would go no more than two years before playing all conference opponents. An incoming freshman should expect to play multiple games against everyone in the conference. They would see every stadium.

Ou wouldn't have to give up the Texas game anymore than UNC would have to give up Duke. That is why you have 4 OOC games. Not difficult to schedule. Everyone assumes that a conference move would eliminate these games and that is simply not true.

That's an interesting model. I would prefer the one I described in the post above yours. It would go as follows (substituting West Virginia for NC State):

SEC SouthFloridaVirginia TechSouth CarolinaWest Virginia/N.C. State

SEC EastGeorgiaTennesseeKentuckyVanderbilt

SEC CentralAlabamaAuburnOle MissMiss. State

SEC WestMissouriTexas A&MArkansasLSU

Year 1: South v. East and Central; East v. South and West; Central v. South and West; West v. East and Central

Year 2: South v. Central and West; East v. West and Central; Central v. South and East; West v. East and South

Year 3: South v. West and Central; East v. South and Central; Central v. East and West; West v. South and Central

Repeat...

I appreciate the benefits between all types of scheduling... What I recommend offers fewer out of conference games. However, crowning division champions is easier because everyone will play common opponents.

I also like that you would go no more than two years before playing all conference opponents. An incoming freshman should expect to play multiple games against everyone in the conference. They would see every stadium.

The only problem I see with this is that some teams will want to maintain their cross division rivals (ex Alabama vs Tenner). The 3-2-3 model allows those teams to keep those, but it does take longer for the cycle to occur.

There is more talk on this site about W. teams which is where your perspective lies.Good to hear other opinions. This is about TV's and revenues and Okies don't do much for the conference in that respect. Good names and drawing power granted. Staying a southeastern assocaition of schools, withsome notable exceptions, is the culture and thing we sell. Oklahoma is not that.

Once the dominoes start to fall who knows ?VT and NC St. seems to be the consensus choices I've read.Everyone has their agenda but growth in our own backyard, the southeast, with DC / Va and NC markets is mine .

I think that neither VT and Va. or UNC and NC ST would necessarily be a bundle deal It will be settled way above my pay grade any way .

There certainly are compromises with every format. In the format that I have described, in the two years out of 6 that they wouldn't play each other, Bama and Tennessee (or any other rivals) might hope to play each other in the 4 team conference playoff system that would grow out of the 4 division format.

In this format, you have 4 teams vying for the division win and conference playoffs. The SEC champ will be one seasoned and beat up group!

I don't see how a conference champion can fairly be crowned from the 3-2-3 format. Out of 8 conference games, I don't know how you determine divisional champions without having played common opponents. Notions of fair play are out the window.

Further complicating matters is the fact that there are 10 conference foes rotating on the final 3 conference games. A 16 team conference simply doesn't allow an even rotation of conference opponents in the 3-2-3 scenario... This means that unless you meet in a conference playoff/championship game, you might not see one conference opponent for 7 years!

Personally, I would hate to see any team in the conference - Alabama or otherwise - so infrequently. It would destroy any conference rivalry. It would create the feel of a good opponent that rolls on the schedule every few years for a home and home series.

I vote that we schedule only one of Louisiana-Lafayette, Missouri State and Troy. Instead, let's play as much of our conference as we can fit on the schedule. It would be exciting and fans would want to buy season ticket packages.

Yeah, it's murderer's row. But it's murderer's row for everyone. It is working in the NFL...

There certainly are compromises with every format. In the format that I have described, in the two years out of 6 that they wouldn't play each other, Bama and Tennessee (or any other rivals) might hope to play each other in the 4 team conference playoff system that would grow out of the 4 division format.

In this format, you have 4 teams vying for the division win and conference playoffs. The SEC champ will be one seasoned and beat up group!

I don't see how a conference champion can fairly be crowned from the 3-2-3 format. Out of 8 conference games, I don't know how you determine divisional champions without having played common opponents. Notions of fair play are out the window.

Further complicating matters is the fact that there are 10 conference foes rotating on the final 3 conference games. A 16 team conference simply doesn't allow an even rotation of conference opponents in the 3-2-3 scenario... This means that unless you meet in a conference playoff/championship game, you might not see one conference opponent for 7 years!

Personally, I would hate to see any team in the conference - Alabama or otherwise - so infrequently. It would destroy any conference rivalry. It would create the feel of a good opponent that rolls on the schedule every few years for a home and home series.

I vote that we schedule only one of Louisiana-Lafayette, Missouri State and Troy. Instead, let's play as much of our conference as we can fit on the schedule. It would be exciting and fans would want to buy season ticket packages.

Yeah, it's murderer's row. But it's murderer's row for everyone. It is working in the NFL...

I like the idea of 4 pods. Set up a 3/3/3 scenario with 3 ooc games. Play teams in your pod, 3 permanent teams (one each from the other pods), and one other pod on a rotating basis. The winner of each pod plays each other in a 4 team playoff based on seeding via the BCS rankings.

If the other three 16 team leagues did the same thing, there is your playoff for the National Championship.

I would desire Ole Miss, Tennessee, and N.C. State to be our permanent rivals.

I like the idea of 4 pods. Set up a 3/3/3 scenario with 3 ooc games. Play teams in your pod, 3 permanent teams (one each from the other pods), and one other pod on a rotating basis. The winner of each pod plays each other in a 4 team playoff based on seeding via the BCS rankings.

If the other three 16 team leagues did the same thing, there is your playoff for the National Championship.

I would desire Ole Miss, Tennessee, and N.C. State to be our permanent rivals.

I appreciate what you are saying. Your example (3-3-3) cleans up the rotating division play by adding one more conference game. The good thing is that we wouldn't have that "hanger" out there in the 3-2-3... you would see every team within a 6 year period.

I still think you guys are missing the point. No one in your own division would have near the same schedule as you do. You could have six different conference opponents as the team that you are challenging for a division. Given the variance in conference programs, how is that supposed to work?

If we play Bama, Georgia and Florida and say A&M ties us one year, but has played Kentucky, Vanderbilt and Mississippi State - how are you going to decide the tie breaker?

This is all pretty darn contrived when 2 more conference games against common opponents would fix everything. Plus, you would get to see all the other schools on a fairly regular basis.

This is essentially the format of the NFL. The Cowboys, Giants, Redskins and Eagles all play the same opponents each year. In my mind, it's the only fair solution.

To each his own I suppose.

Peace everyone. This is more fun to talk about than anything else football related these days.

Virginia was forced to let VA Tech into the ACC by the state legislature. Beyond that, there's nothing that ties them together. UVA doesn't intrinsically care what conference VA Tech is in - unless they get jealous . What I know about VA Tech, though, is that they really like the Olympic/non-revenue sports competition in the ACC and might feel bad about forcing themselves into the ACC and then bolting just a few years later.

Clemson's not a national draw and we already have the SC market. I don't know that doubling-down there does us any good.

UNC seems like an untapped mine for football. I don't know how we could get them out of NC, though, with NC State, Duke, and Wake around. Kind of like trying to pry UT out of Texas.

Since the SEC can only take 16, some teams are going to get left out. We can't just take the top schools. It would never work. So, this is about market share more than on-field wins and losses, and a mediocre Mizzou or UNC > FSU or Okie State in that regard. So can the SEC afford to take two schools from Oklahoma just to get OU and forego gaining ground on the East Coast? I don't see how.

You are DEFINITELY correct about VaTech. I don't see how OU and OSU could move now even if they wanted too because of the handcuffs the conference put on them with the media rights exit fee.

No Big 12 program can come to the SEC. The individual programs just signed over their media rights to the Big12. Even if OU and OSU could move to the SEC. The Big12 would retain their media rights for the next 13 years.

When it comes to scheduling the first thing that will need to be decided is 8 or 9 conference games. Might not seem like a big difference but when you go to 9 conference games we would lose a home game every other year. That is alot of revenue for a school to miss out on.

Second, the NCAA would have to approve the pod system. Right now the NCAA allows divisions with a conference championship game but I'm not so sure about pods with in-conference playoffs. That may require petitioning the NCAA and right now they have their hands full with changing the BCS.

I personally would like a 9 game conference slate with one game being at a neutral site in the structure of 4 pods.

I appreciate what you are saying. Your example (3-3-3) cleans up the rotating division play by adding one more conference game. The good thing is that we wouldn't have that "hanger" out there in the 3-2-3... you would see every team within a 6 year period.

I still think you guys are missing the point. No one in your own division would have near the same schedule as you do. You could have six different conference opponents as the team that you are challenging for a division. Given the variance in conference programs, how is that supposed to work?

If we play Bama, Georgia and Florida and say A&M ties us one year, but has played Kentucky, Vanderbilt and Mississippi State - how are you going to decide the tie breaker?

This is all pretty darn contrived when 2 more conference games against common opponents would fix everything. Plus, you would get to see all the other schools on a fairly regular basis.

This is essentially the format of the NFL. The Cowboys, Giants, Redskins and Eagles all play the same opponents each year. In my mind, it's the only fair solution.

To each his own I suppose.

Peace everyone. This is more fun to talk about than anything else football related these days.

The priority in the system I suggested would be to win your pod and have a chance to go further. Your pod teams are playing each other plus one other pod division equally (that is 7 games out of 9). We don't even have that with 12 teams now. The only difference would be the permanent opponents. Some of those might even be the same. The focus is winning your pod. The other stuff is just to make it a little different each year and experience different teams.

The priority in the system I suggested would be to win your pod and have a chance to go further. Your pod teams are playing each other plus one other pod division equally (that is 7 games out of 9). We don't even have that with 12 teams now. The only difference would be the permanent opponents. Some of those might even be the same. The focus is winning your pod. The other stuff is just to make it a little different each year and experience different teams.

You're right about the common opponents... Not bad.

I don't know. I still think it would be cool to set the standard with 11 conference games. The television contract would be U-N-B-E-L-I-E-V-E-A-B-L-E.

Plus, Razorback Stadium would be packed for every game. No more boring rent-a-wins.

I have seen a different model of the SEC once it goes to 16 teams. It would follow a 3-2-3 model. Three teams from your own division, two yearly rivals, and three rotating opponents which would allow you to complete the entire circuit every six years. It would look something like this: (this model assumes the addition of VT and NC St)

The benefit of the 3-2-3 model allows teams to stay with 8 conference games.

But if you simply kept the current format East/West, teams could still have 8 conference games each year. You would have your 7 divisional games, (one crossover game per year or a rotating basis) two rent-a-wins and two tougher OOC games per year. Just because you go to 16 teams doesn't mean you have to go to 9 conference games.

I'm not a fan of going to 9 conference games. We already have a couple teams each year that just squeak in to a bowl game and that is with using the 4 OOC games on mid level teams. If they have to play another conference game they most likely end up with 5 or less wins and don't make the bowl game. I know most on here don't care about the mid to bottom level SEC teams but the more bowl games we make the publicity for the conference.

I'm not a fan of going to 9 conference games. We already have a couple teams each year that just squeak in to a bowl game and that is with using the 4 OOC games on mid level teams. If they have to play another conference game they most likely end up with 5 or less wins and don't make the bowl game. I know most on here don't care about the mid to bottom level SEC teams but the more bowl games we make the publicity for the conference.

I agree, no need and no requirement to go to a 9 game in-conference schedule. If and when we go to a 16 team conference, keep the divisional games at 7 with one crossover game per year and 4 OOC games per year. Simple, done deal.

I just think we would have to go to a pod set up. If it is a 2 division set up then what do we do about Bama and their infatuation with keeping the Tenn rivalry game? If that is a permanent game and we have a permanent rival, then we would never play some of the teams from the other division. We might as well be 2 different conferences altogether.

Even if it is not a permanent opponent, after we play a home and return game with a team, it would end up being that we don't play all the other teams in the conference for 15 years. Yikes!

Going to the pod system allows a greater flexibility in scheduling. I like the idea of having a rotating pod challenge, say pod a vs b for 2 years then rotate to pod a vs c for 2 years. This allows faster transit through league opponents and keeps the opponents somewhat equatable when determining division winners.

But if you simply kept the current format East/West, teams could still have 8 conference games each year. You would have your 7 divisional games, (one crossover game per year or a rotating basis) two rent-a-wins and two tougher OOC games per year. Just because you go to 16 teams doesn't mean you have to go to 9 conference games.

The 3-2-3 format does only have 8 conference games. That's the nice thing about it. I agree with you on the 9 conference game rotation. I just don't see the SEC schools agreeing to it. 8 is tough enough. Plus I don't think they will go for giving up the extra home game, unless every team can agree to 1 neutral site (like we did with A&M).

I just think we would have to go to a pod set up. If it is a 2 division set up then what do we do about Bama and their infatuation with keeping the Tenn rivalry game? If that is a permanent game and we have a permanent rival, then we would never play some of the teams from the other division. We might as well be 2 different conferences altogether.

Even if it is not a permanent opponent, after we play a home and return game with a team, it would end up being that we don't play all the other teams in the conference for 15 years. Yikes!

Going to the pod system allows a greater flexibility in scheduling. I like the idea of having a rotating pod challenge, say pod a vs b for 2 years then rotate to pod a vs c for 2 years. This allows faster transit through league opponents and keeps the opponents somewhat equatable when determining division winners.

Pesonally I don't see the need in playing all the teams in the conference like the pod supporters do. I would like to see them do away with the home and home piece though. Each year let your cross division game change. Then when it rotates around again you go to their place.

I'm not a fan of going to 9 conference games. We already have a couple teams each year that just squeak in to a bowl game and that is with using the 4 OOC games on mid level teams. If they have to play another conference game they most likely end up with 5 or less wins and don't make the bowl game. I know most on here don't care about the mid to bottom level SEC teams but the more bowl games we make the publicity for the conference.

I don't love it either, but if we keep expanding and the Pac12 and B1G do it, I think it'll be inevitable. We'll have to find a way to play more conference games while keeping other leagues from squeezing us out with SOS.

I don't love it either, but if we keep expanding and the Pac12 and B1G do it, I think it'll be inevitable. We'll have to find a way to play more conference games while keeping other leagues from squeezing us out with SOS.

I just don't see this as being true or necessary. An 8 game in-conference schedule is tough enough, you take two rent-a-wins and schedule two OOC solid games...Rutgers as an example and maybe a California or Michigan State, and you are good to go. That SOS really gets measured against 10 of 12 regular season games. It isn't like we are fighting for the respect of our schedule like Boise State.

One neutral site game per team would be interesting. But might be hard to pull off. Us vs AM and Georgia vs Florida are already set up but what about the other teams? Bama vs Tenn in Atlanta, Kent vs Mizzou in St Louis, Ole Miss vs SC in Nashville, MSt vs VTech in Nashville, Vandy vs NCst in Atlanta, etc.

Am I the only fan who doesn't particularly enjoy the UTEP game? Doesn't it cost the same money and time to attend the Missouri State game? Aren't those the games that cause many of our fans to claim that Razorback Stadium is not an exciting football venue?

Give me more conference games. The atmosphere is 10 times better. The game is 10 times better. The travel to our opponents' towns and stadiums is 10 times more fun.

I just don't see this as being true or necessary. An 8 game in-conference schedule is tough enough, you take two rent-a-wins and schedule two OOC solid games...Rutgers as an example and maybe a California or Michigan State, and you are good to go. That SOS really gets measured against 10 of 12 regular season games. It isn't like we are fighting for the respect of our schedule like Boise State.

True, we're not Boise State. But when the ticket to the BCS playoff is measured in hundredths of points, every possible point is going to count. It's no coincidence that the B1G is pushing for SOS at the same time they're going to 9 conference games--they obviously think that the combination is going to help them squeeze into the top 4.

I hope it doesn't come to 9 games. I think it's bad for a number of reasons. First, it limits the number of interesting/rival non-conference opponents a team can schedule.

Second, it limits the number of non-conference games you can schedule with mid-major teams. That's important for major conferences teams because you want to be able to have a couple of warm-up games before the conference slate. It's important for the mid-major teams because it costs them a chance at a headline-grabbing win and the certainty of a 3rd payday from a major conference program--paydays many of these mid-major programs need in order to survive. It also vaporizes what tiny chance the mid-majors have of making a SOS argument from out-of-conference play, which I suspect is a goal of Delaney's: it must have steamed him up no end to watch TCU stick it in Wisconsin in the one BCS game where the powers-that-be were unable to marginalize the non-AQ school into a BCS ghetto.

Third, it reduces the chances of an undefeated conference champion. On the surface, that's not necessarily heartbreaking. But, undefeated conference champions in the major conferences are going into the playoff, no dobut about it. The larger number of 1 teams means more argument about who should and shouldn't get it in the bracket--leagues like the Pac12 and B1G and Notre Dame can appeal to name brand over substance, especially against the Big 12 and ACC teams. If you think the 4-team bracket is too small, then this might be a blessing in disguise. It's also the kind of thing that keep BCS chairman Bill Hancock and BCS bowl directors up all night, since any expansion basically means the end of the BCS as we know it.

One neutral site game per team would be interesting. But might be hard to pull off. Us vs AM and Georgia vs Florida are already set up but what about the other teams? Bama vs Tenn in Atlanta, Kent vs Mizzou in St Louis, Ole Miss vs SC in Nashville, MSt vs VTech in Nashville, Vandy vs NCst in Atlanta, etc.

Generally, teams don't want neutral site games. Unless you're getting a major payout somewhere along the line, your campus and local economy loses millions on the deal.

Am I the only fan who doesn't particularly enjoy the UTEP game? Doesn't it cost the same money and time to attend the Missouri State game? Aren't those the games that cause many of our fans to claim that Razorback Stadium is not an exciting football venue?

Give me more conference games. The atmosphere is 10 times better. The game is 10 times better. The travel to our opponents' towns and stadiums is 10 times more fun.

Somebody has to win them. May as well be us.

You are thinking like a fan (it is all about MY entertainment) and not from a business standpoint like a HC or an AD. The goal is to have more wins and promote the difficulty of your conference, while NOT to eating each other alive while others remain ahead of you in the polls because their conference schedule isn't nearly as difficult.

True, we're not Boise State. But when the ticket to the BCS playoff is measured in hundredths of points, every possible point is going to count. It's no coincidence that the B1G is pushing for SOS at the same time they're going to 9 conference games--they obviously think that the combination is going to help them squeeze into the top 4.

I hope it doesn't come to 9 games. I think it's bad for a number of reasons. First, it limits the number of interesting/rival non-conference opponents a team can schedule.

Second, it limits the number of non-conference games you can schedule with mid-major teams. That's important for major conferences teams because you want to be able to have a couple of warm-up games before the conference slate. It's important for the mid-major teams because it costs them a chance at a headline-grabbing win and the certainty of a 3rd payday from a major conference program--paydays many of these mid-major programs need in order to survive. It also vaporizes what tiny chance the mid-majors have of making a SOS argument from out-of-conference play, which I suspect is a goal of Delaney's: it must have steamed him up no end to watch TCU stick it in Wisconsin in the one BCS game where the powers-that-be were unable to marginalize the non-AQ school into a BCS ghetto.

Third, it reduces the chances of an undefeated conference champion. On the surface, that's not necessarily heartbreaking. But, undefeated conference champions in the major conferences are going into the playoff, no dobut about it. The larger number of 1 teams means more argument about who should and shouldn't get it in the bracket--leagues like the Pac12 and B1G and Notre Dame can appeal to name brand over substance, especially against the Big 12 and ACC teams. If you think the 4-team bracket is too small, then this might be a blessing in disguise. It's also the kind of thing that keep BCS chairman Bill Hancock and BCS bowl directors up all night, since any expansion basically means the end of the BCS as we know it.

Yeah but the Big1G is still only currently playing 8 in conference games per opponent with the CCG being the 9th game, same as us if we went to 16 teams.

You are thinking like a fan (it is all about MY entertainment) and not from a business standpoint like a HC or an AD. The goal is to have more wins and promote the difficulty of your conference, while NOT to eating each other alive while others remain ahead of you in the polls because their conference schedule isn't nearly as difficult.

I get what you're saying, but I actually believe that the business end of the deal is also stronger in my vision. The TV revenues from an 11 game SEC conference slate would be staggering. You would have multiple weekly games that would have strong national appeal. Every game counts. Teams play roughly the same schedules...

If the Hogs only win 5 games, then we miss out on a trip to Shreveport. I hate that game anyway.

The SEC champion will always make it into whatever playoff system is developed. If the BCS survives, I think that a 2 loss SEC team that plays a heavy conference schedule would get in to the national championship game ahead of most undefeated teams from anywhere else... How many championships have we won in a row?

I think that the thing we lose from the system I propose is having 2 SEC teams in the national title game. FWIW - I know that LSU and Alabama were the two best teams in college football last year, but I believe it was wrong that Alabama got a second bite at the apple.

Am I the only fan who doesn't particularly enjoy the UTEP game? Doesn't it cost the same money and time to attend the Missouri State game? Aren't those the games that cause many of our fans to claim that Razorback Stadium is not an exciting football venue?

Give me more conference games. The atmosphere is 10 times better. The game is 10 times better. The travel to our opponents' towns and stadiums is 10 times more fun.

Somebody has to win them. May as well be us.

You will think that way until that extra game costs us a chance at a BCS Bowl/championship then you will be wondering why we did it. The same thing goes for us putting 8 - 9 teams in a bowl game and then we have 6 or 7. The elite teams (top 2 or 3) may be ok with it but it will hurt everyone else.